AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and third-degree shooting at or from a motor vehicle. The convictions were based on the unitary act of shooting and killing one victim (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Garcia, September 15, 2011: The Court of Appeals affirmed all of Defendant's convictions, including for voluntary manslaughter and third-degree shooting at or from a motor vehicle, relying on State v. Dominguez (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his conviction for both voluntary manslaughter and third-degree shooting at or from a motor vehicle violated his right to be free from double jeopardy (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for both voluntary manslaughter and third-degree shooting at or from a motor vehicle violated his right to be free from double jeopardy (para 2).

Disposition

• The conviction for shooting at or from a motor vehicle was vacated, and the case was remanded to the district court for re-sentencing (para 10).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring):
  The Court reconsidered its prior opinion in light of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Montoya, which overruled State v. Dominguez and related cases. These cases previously supported the possibility of separate convictions for homicide crimes and shooting from or at a motor vehicle based on the same act. Montoya clarified that such convictions violate the principle of double jeopardy when based on a unitary act of shooting and killing one victim (paras 1-3). Given the factual and legal similarity to Montoya, the Court determined that one of the two convictions must be vacated. Since both convictions carried the same sentence, the Court chose to vacate the conviction for shooting at or from a motor vehicle, deeming voluntary manslaughter the more serious crime due to the involvement of taking a life (paras 4-8). The Defendant's argument regarding the enhancement of his punishment for the shooting conviction was deemed moot following the resolution of the double jeopardy issue (para 9).